Owners say the bill to fix moisture damage in a Hamilton home now tops $600,000. Stock photo / 123RF
Owners say the bill to fix moisture damage in a Hamilton home now tops $600,000. Stock photo / 123RF
A homeowner has been awarded more than $370,000 towards fixing a leaky home now likely to cost more than $600,000 to repair because of escalating building costs.
In February the Weathertight Homes Tribunal ordered Hamilton City Council to pay $376,353 toward the cost to fix the Rototuna home in north Hamilton.
Soon afterwards, owner Rosemary Alchin and her co-trustee Simon Scott sought to have the decision amended to factor in rapidly increased building costs.
The tribunal declined the application for reasons including the pair had not clearly indicated this at the original hearing in November last year.
Alchin bought the property in June 2006, following a visual inspection that included some non-invasive moisture readings, which revealed no weather-tightness issues.
She told Open Justice she thought the property was "sound as a bell", but later discovered it had been built without a wall cavity separating the framing from the plaster - which was not unusual in the era it was built.
Building consent for the home, built between 1998 and 2000 was issued in December 1997. Code compliance was not issued until September 2004.
It was later found to have "widespread weathertight deficiencies" including damage to the timber-framed structure, caused by leaking windows and door perimeters, and cracks in the cladding and in apron flashings (weather seals at the wall/roof junction).
The Weathertight Homes Tribunal has ordered a council to pay $376,000 towards the cost of fixing a leaky home. Stock photo / 123RF
The house was built from light timber framing and clad in solid plaster, which went into the ground all around the house.
The claimants consistently alleged lack of ground clearance was a "clear and obvious defect".
Best practice guidelines stated that under no circumstances should stucco be carried down to ground. The consented plans for the house showed clearance was required.
It had undergone several paint jobs in its lifetime, including one repaint within three years.
Vertical, horizontal and some diagonal cracking was present in the cladding as early as 2003, when the former owners repainted the house.
The worst cracks were found around most of the windows, according to a house painter who gave evidence for the claimants.
He said the cracking was more extensive than he usually saw on a home of that age.
Expert analysis from a detailed report used to determine eligibility for the claim suggested that the framing timber was either untreated perishable radiata pine, or it may have lost boron due to leaching.
Boron is used in treated timber to prevent brown rot. Evidence later showed that the problem was caused less by water getting in than moisture being unable to escape.
A house painter said cracks in the plaster cladding of a Hamilton home were among the worst he had seen in a house of that age. Stock photo / 123RF
Tribunal adjudicator Kevin Kilgour said in his decision of February 4 that while insufficient ground clearance was a weathertight deficiency, it had not caused damage to the house.
Alchin faced a lengthy process to reach that point.
In November 2010 she and her co-trustee filed for an assessor's report under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act, but was told almost a year later that because the house was built more than 10 years before the application, the claim was not eligible.
The decision was later reversed when a fresh inspection was ordered under revised laws, which took into account the date that code compliance was issued rather than the date the house was built.
A claim was lodged with the tribunal in February 2020, alleging the sole respondent, Hamilton City Council, failed to ensure the build was in accordance with the Building Code and that it "negligently permitted construction".
The council confirmed it had granted building consent and had issued the code compliance, but argued that the "alleged weathertight deficiencies did not exist", or had not caused damage.
It was found the most effective remediation would be to reclad the entire house.
Kilgour determined the reasonable cost to repair the defects was $468,471 but awarded $351,353 plus $25,000 for general damages.
The total amount took into account the homeowners' successful bid in securing government assistance for 25 per cent of repair costs.
Alchin was happy with the outcome but advised anyone looking at buying a plaster-clad home, especially one built in that era, to look closely at the construction.
